The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

misunderstanding the legal principles of the grounds for appeal, the court below's judgment convicting the defendant individual on the ground that the defendant was found guilty is unreasonable, since the defendant, as the head of the C Village fishing village fraternity, has protected the surrounding environment of the ship's arrival and executed the resolution of the fishing village fraternity meeting, to correct the order.

It is difficult to view that the C Village fishing village fraternity has the right or authority to enforce the Defendant’s non-exclusive use of the Iline, as well as there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant made a resolution of the above contents in the C Village fishing village fraternity on the argument of misunderstanding of the legal principles regarding the determination of unfair determination of sentencing, or that the C Village fishing village fraternity has the right or

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's argument of misunderstanding the legal principles.

It is reasonable to respect the judgment of the first-class sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first-class judgment, and the first-class sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

In the process of preventing the victim of a fishing village fraternity from using the F-line fishing market for the purpose of fishing market business, there was a dispute between the victim and the victim of another fishing village fraternity. As a result, the fact that the crime of this case was committed, the fact that the defendant was the first offender and the defendant was replaced by the crime, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

However, considering all these circumstances, the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, record of crime, motive and circumstance after the crime, etc., have been significantly changed in the trial.

In light of the above sentencing conditions, it is difficult to see that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is justified.